The Court observed that merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling empty formalities would not serve any useful purpose and would only lead to multiplicity of litigations.
The Madras High Court has set aside an assessment order passed without personal hearing, holding that when a taxpayer does not respond to notices uploaded on the GST portal, the officer is duty-bound to explore other modes of service prescribed under Section 169(1) of the GST Act, preferably by way of RPAD [M/s. Viyasaya Thulikal Velaan Naduvam v. Deputy State Tax Officer, Tindivanam].
Justice Krishnan Ramasamy acknowledged that uploading notices on the portal is a valid mode of service under the Act. However, the Court drew a critical distinction between valid service and effective service, observing that when there is no response from the taxpayer despite repeated reminders sent through the portal, the officer should apply his mind and consider alternative modes of communication.
The Court observed that "merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well."
The order was set aside and the matter remanded, subject to payment of 15% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner within four weeks, in addition to the 10% already paid at the appeal stage.
2026-juristway.com-3068-HC(Madras)-GST
